The International Maritime Organization faces a decisive vote this week on whether to impose binding emissions targets on an industry responsible for moving 90% of global trade.
The draft Net Zero Framework, a decade in the making, could add between $80 billion and $120 billion annually to worldwide shipping costs—roughly 0.1% of global GDP—while the viability of proposed alternatives remains unproven.
At an April 2025 committee meeting, 63 of 103 eligible nations voted to advance the Framework to plenary vote, with 16 opposed and 24 abstaining. The voting pattern reveals the IMO’s unusual power structure: unlike most UN bodies, each of its 175 members holds equal weight. This matters because the world’s three largest ship registries—Liberia, Panama, and the Marshall Islands—wield the same influence as China (sixth by tonnage) or the European Union (second if consolidated). The United States doesn’t rank in the top 20.
The proposed Framework would cover vessels exceeding 5,000 gross tonnage, encompassing roughly 90% of maritime COâ‚‚ emissions. Ships surpassing progressively lower lifecycle greenhouse gas intensity thresholds would purchase remedial units, while operators using zero- or near-zero-emission fuels would receive credits. Enforcement would commence in 2028 if ratified.
European nations, joined by China as a major shipbuilder and clean energy manufacturer, support the measure. The U.S. and most oil exporters oppose it. American diplomatic efforts since April have labeled the Framework a “European-led neo-colonial export” and threatened sanctions, visa restrictions, and port access denial to supporting nations.
The Economics of Ammonia and Methanol
Green ammonia holds 63% of very low sulfur fuel oil’s gravimetric energy density. A ship requires 1.6 tonnes of ammonia to match the range of one tonne of VLSFO. At $800 per tonne, ammonia becomes equivalent to $1,280 per tonne of VLSFO—a 120% premium over current fossil fuel prices around $580 per tonne.
Even at an optimized $600 per tonne (achievable only in major ports, not remote locations), green ammonia maintains a 60% cost premium on an energy-equivalent basis.
Volumetric density compounds the problem. Ammonia occupies 72% of VLSFO’s volume, meaning those 1.6 tonnes require 2.2 times the tank space, directly reducing cargo capacity. Operators must also install double-walled refrigerated tanks, spill containment systems, upgraded piping, more expensive engines, enhanced ventilation, detection equipment, and provide specialized crew training.
The combined effect: fuel costs increase 60-120% while carrying capacity shrinks and operational complexity rises. Total shipping costs would climb 20-40% across the industry’s $400 billion annual expenditure—translating to that $80-120 billion annual economic drag.
Methanol simplifies operations but escalates costs. Using the cheapest conceivable green hydrogen paired with biogenic carbon (supply uncertain), methanol would cost the equivalent of $1,760 per tonne of VLSFO—triple the fossil baseline and double green ammonia’s expense.
Direct air capture for e-methanol production pushes costs to 10 times VLSFO pricing. No credible pathway exists for the 5x cost reduction needed to approach green ammonia’s competitiveness at twice fossil fuel rates.
Revenue Allocation and Developing Nation Concerns
Collected revenues would flow to an IMO fund designated for clean shipping innovation, infrastructure development, and support for developing states’ transitions. The fund’s design and engagement rules remain undefined.
Small island nations have voiced particular concern that the Framework ignores impacts on their imports, exports, and tourism sectors while directing capital toward experimental zero-carbon fuels with unproven commercial viability. The distributional effects on economies heavily dependent on maritime trade lack detailed analysis in current proposals.
Nuclear Power’s Variable Cost Advantage
Nuclear-powered commercial vessels present a different cost structure. While upfront capital expenditure would be substantial—no nuclear ship has ever been built for economic reasons—variable operating costs would be minimal. This eliminates the speed-emissions tradeoff facing conventional vessels trying to conserve expensive low-carbon fuel.
Higher sustained speeds could reduce journey times, decreasing the number of ships needed to service a route and shortening supply chain length. For charterers, this translates to reduced working capital requirements throughout the supply chain. The proliferation of maritime nuclear reactors raises separate questions about safety protocols and regulatory frameworks for walk-away safe designs in mobile applications.
The Framework imposes costs without guaranteeing that generated funds will produce affordable alternatives. Regulations driving adoption of fuels costing 2-10 times conventional options will generate persistent inflationary pressure, with concentrated impacts on maritime-dependent industries and geographies.
The IMO’s binding legal authority distinguishes it from bodies like the UNFCCC. Its low-sulfur fuel mandates triggered significant refinery investments and operational changes across the industry. Yet the same 175-nation majority that could ratify the Net Zero Framework maintains the power to rescind it. Without demonstrable progress toward economically viable zero-carbon fuels or equitable distribution of transition costs, the regulation’s survival beyond a decade faces considerable doubt.
Stay updated on the latest in energy! Follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook, and X for real-time news and insights. Don’t miss out on exclusive interviews and webinars—subscribe to our YouTube channel today! Join our community and be part of the conversation shaping the future of energy.
